↓ Skip to main content

An integration of competing accounts on children’s number line estimation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An integration of competing accounts on children’s number line estimation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00884
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Dackermann, Stefan Huber, Julia Bahnmueller, Hans-Christoph Nuerk, Korbinian Moeller

Abstract

Children's estimation patterns in bounded number line estimation (NLE) reveal marked developmental changes. Three different theoretical accounts were proposed to explain these changes: a log-to-linear shift account, a proportion-judgment account and a two-linear account considering familiarity with numbers or the understanding of the place-value structure of the Arabic number system. However, only the first two accounts are considered prominently in the ongoing scientific debate. Therefore, we first present a reanalysis of NLE data of Austrian first-graders contrasting all three accounts. Results indicate that the two-linear account is a reliable alternative to the log-to-linear shift as well as the proportion-judgment account. However, we do not claim the two-liner account to provide an exhaustive explanation for the observed developmental changes. We rather introduce the idea that aspects of all three accounts may complement - instead of exclude - each other. Jointly considering conceptual (i.e., familiarity, place-value) and procedural (i.e., proportion-judgments) aspects will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of children's development in NLE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 28%
Student > Master 11 18%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 63%
Mathematics 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2019.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,085
of 29,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,858
of 263,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#383
of 562 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 562 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.